Law & Disorder —

Stockholm court: Pirate Bay judge wasn’t biased!

The Pirate Bay defendants have accused the judge in their trial of bias after …

Soon after The Pirate Bay trial ended in a guilty verdict, the site admins objected to alleged "bias" in district judge Tomas Norstr�m. Turns out that Norstr�m was a member of two different copyright organizations, one of which received some of its money from global music trade group IFPI. A court of appeals agreed to look into the matter, even assigning the review to a different section of judges that usually does not deal with copyright questions to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest.

As part of the appeal, the Stockholm District Court has now weighed in, defending its judge, according to newspaper Svenska Dagbladet (read an English summary).

Norstr�m, it says, wasn't biased at all, but simply a member of organizations in which he learned more about copyright and kept abreast of new developments. It certainly was not Norstr�m's only way of keeping up to date on copyright, and such professional memberships should not be used as evidence of bias.

Norstr�m belongs to the Swedish Copyright Association along with Henrik Pont�n, Peter Danowsky, and Monique Wadsted—all lawyers who represented the recording industry in the Pirate Bay trial. Norstr�m also sits on the board of the Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property, an advocacy group that pushes stricter copyright laws.

The appeals court will rule on the issue of judicial bias soon, but either way, the case will continue. If Norstr�m is found to be biased, the case will likely have to be retried; if not, the Pirate Bay defendants have already signaled their desire to appeal the verdict.

As they wrote soon after the trial concluded, "We have to remember that this will not be the final decision, only the first before the losing party will appeal. It will have no real effect on anything besides setting the tone for the debate, so we hope we win of course."

Movie and music rightsholders have already filed their own appeal. In addition to seeking more cash (the 30 million kronor damage award was far too low, they say), lawyers for the content owners want the charge of "infringing copyright" restored against the defendants. During the trial, this charge was dropped and "contributory copyright infringement" was the charge under which The Pirate Bay admins were found guilty.

All of which leaves one thing perfectly clear: The Pirate Bay's legal battle will continue, probably for years.

I will be applying this logic to many things that are likely to come up. Drunk driving, speeding, assault, if the police officer does not accept my logic then even perhaps assaulting an officer. I am sure the list can go on and on.

Way to go Big Content. Even those that agree with the reasoning behind your filings can recognize how badly your lawyers have botched this trial. Greed, bias, and relentless pressure have done well to....oh wait... TPB still isn't dead.

Arrrrr! They wouldn't be Pirates is they were made to be legal!!! Hoist the Jolly Roger men! The fight goes on!

On a more serious note iI am not surprised by this in the slightest. In fact I was expecting this to happen. Of course the Courts are going to defend their Judge. He is THEIR Judge! This all stinks of big and is not the first time cash has influenced a courts decision.

Originally posted by Demondeluxe:I will be applying this logic to many things that are likely to come up. Drunk driving, speeding, assault, if the police officer does not accept my logic then even perhaps assaulting an officer. I am sure the list can go on and on.

On a more realistic note this is fucking retarded.

Your analogy doesn't make any sense. This would be the equivalent of a police officer (or more aptly a judge) being a member of MADD.

I really can't believe some of the people advocating for a retrial on these grounds. There was nothing in the judgment or the manner in which the trial was conducted that could have been seen as bias. I understand not wanting to pay the fine and do the time (that would seriously suck), but it's the equivalent of losing a game and then crying foul. Why didn't they raise these objections before the verdict was read?

I pirate a lot of stuff, and I'm willing to accept the consequences. I take reasonable steps to protect myself, but if I got a guilty judgment that lenient (the fines were substantially below what the IFPI wanted), I think I would STFU and pay/serve it. Honestly, if they get a new trial, I can't imagine a verdict anywhere near that good.

Anyone who would claim that the Pirate Bay isn't meant to facilitate copyright infringement is disingenuous. They bite their thumb at every copyright owner/enforcer, and there really isn't very much legal content on the site. Hell I've gone there looking for Linux releases, and they don't have much that's current or well-seeded. The first rule about being a criminal is to avoid attention. The law enforcers will always be better funded and staffed than the criminals.

Originally posted by jbrown96:I really can't believe some of the people advocating for a retrial on these grounds.

I think it is more the combination of these factors, which are definitely more questionable IMO than you posit them to be, combined with the very shaky case and evidence the prosecution put forth. A truly objective judge would have called the prosecution on some of the points they made. He did not.

No poor analogies needed: The Judge clearly demonstrates a strong legislative opinion directly related to the case at hand. Judges are supposed to impartially apply the law, or in a common law state apply the law or deem it invalid. This judge lobbies to make laws pertinent to this case. It is a clear conflict of interest.

Originally posted by jbrown96:Anyone who would claim that the Pirate Bay isn't meant to facilitate copyright infringement is disingenuous. They bite their thumb at every copyright owner/enforcer, and there really isn't very much legal content on the site. Hell I've gone there looking for Linux releases, and they don't have much that's current or well-seeded. The first rule about being a criminal is to avoid attention. The law enforcers will always be better funded and staffed than the criminals.

You are being disingenuous if you think this is just about The Pirate Bay. It is bigger then that, when you have the power and international influence to shutdown a website hosted on a sovereign state, where do you go from there?

If you dig just a little bit you will see many examples of Big Content exploiting their power and money and undermining the political process left and right. I've said it once and I'll say it again: It's in the public's best interest that The Pirate Bay exists and that their message is heard

"No your honor, he does not have anything against blacks... he is just a member of the KKK to understand them better, the fact that he is one of the leaders in the KKK - akin to being a board member in an organization just goes to show his understanding of black culture is better than most"

WTF???!??!

If a retrial is not granted Swedish citizens (me included) will have nothing but contempt for the law and legal system over here.

FFS Mr.MAFIAA, if you are going to be the puppeteer then at _least_ hide the strings properly otherwise there is no illusion at all and we can see your slimy hands.

The pirate party's one seat was our first response, just wait till 2010 when we respond again in the national elections., just wait bitches.

Originally posted by www.eZee.se:"No your honor, he does not have anything against blacks... he is just a member of the KKK to understand them better, the fact that he is one of the leaders in the KKK - akin to being a board member in an organization just goes to show his understanding of black culture is better than most"

Thanks, this thread was missing a bit of Godwin's Law. Nazi's to follow.

At any rate, yes it is normal for judges to belong to various organizations that deal with legal matters. No, it is not conflict of interest in most cases(although there are exceptions). And being a board member does not imply anything sinister, unless of course you assume that all board members are in unison on thier opinion(in which case, why have a board at all?). Unless I see some evidence that he was preaching specifically against these individuals or this specific usage, I don't see the argument for bias.

As for the conspiracy theorists, you people are no better than the moon landing hoaxers. Just because a decision does not go the way you wish it would, does that mean there must have been a bribe or payoff? How many of you people even know the first thing about Swedish law? Or do you just make random statements off the cuff about legal decisions without supporting evidence? I know little to nothing about Swedish law, but I do know that I'll take the judge's interpretation over random internet people, or even TPB(and the IFPI), which of course have their own agendas.

I think Big Content would be better off if they admitted the bias, apologized, removed the judge, and went on from there. As it is, they either 1)win this, and people riot, or 2)lose this, and are far worse off than they started.

On a semi-unrelated note, why doesn't TPB have a term in their EULA that anyone downloading a .torrent may not use it to attack pirates?

Originally posted by idontunderstand:I think Big Content would be better off if they admitted the bias, apologized, removed the judge, and went on from there. As it is, they either 1)win this, and people riot, or 2)lose this, and are far worse off than they started.

On a semi-unrelated note, why doesn't TPB have a term in their EULA that anyone downloading a .torrent may not use it to attack pirates?

1) There will be no riots, not enough people give a damn.2) Worse off how? If they lose this case they adjust their model to compensate.

As for apologizing, what do they have to apologize for? Using the legal system to enforce what they see as their rights, vs taking a vigilante approach and perhaps raiding TPB's hosting service and smashing the machines? This is exactly what a civil legal system is designed to do, to arbitrate in a binding matter between parties in dispute. As for removing the judge and starting over, what for? All that will happen is that if TPB loses they will try to find some other link, however tenuous, between that decision and some claim of bias. After all they are shooting the messenger here rather than appealing the message(which would have been the proper course of action).

And what is the point of having such a term in their EULA? Having such a term is not the same thing as such a term being legally enforceable, as software venders in the US have found out multiple times...

Originally posted by reflex-croft:At any rate, yes it is normal for judges to belong to various organizations that deal with legal matters. No, it is not conflict of interest in most cases(although there are exceptions). And being a board member does not imply anything sinister, unless of course you assume that all board members are in unison on thier opinion(in which case, why have a board at all?). Unless I see some evidence that he was preaching specifically against these individuals or this specific usage, I don't see the argument for bias.

It might not imply anything "sinister", but it is above and beyond "membership". It is not an attempt to learn about copyright, but an attempt to shape copyright.

Oh, and the board to which he belongs lobbies the legislature for stricter copyright laws. I do believe that satisfies the "preaching specifically against ... this specific usage".

Originally posted by reflex-croft:At any rate, yes it is normal for judges to belong to various organizations that deal with legal matters. No, it is not conflict of interest in most cases(although there are exceptions). And being a board member does not imply anything sinister, unless of course you assume that all board members are in unison on thier opinion(in which case, why have a board at all?). Unless I see some evidence that he was preaching specifically against these individuals or this specific usage, I don't see the argument for bias.

Is it also normal for judges to give rulings based on novel (not previously used in legal rulings) interpretations of existing law when said interpretation is something that said group judge belongs to is specifically pushing for (and is in fact pushing to have explicitly codified in future laws)?

PTB has been putting on a play for all of us to watch and analyze. Is it a drama, a comedy, a tragi-comedy? Who knows, it is just intermission after the first act? But it definitely is an opportunity for all of us to begin some critical thinking and taking a moment to think about what we do know.

I have been following TPB and the trial with interest. I think there are so many interesting angles to the idea of ownership, especially as it applies to cultural media. I have been thinking hard about libraries vs bit torrents or is that libraries and bit torrents. I have been thinking about music I once bought but no longer possess (due to theft, negligence, accident, or resale). If I bought it once, do I have the right to own it forever? And what about fair use, I can see plenty of fair use explanations for bit torrents.

Lastly, I think watching Steal This Movie is helpful to understanding the broad worldwide context for what is at stake...the right to our cultural history.

Originally posted by jbrown96:I really can't believe some of the people advocating for a retrial on these grounds...

This whole post is premised on the assumption that what TPB did was wrong and illegal - circular argument.

quote:

Originally posted by reflex-croft:At any rate, yes it is normal for judges to belong to various organizations that deal with legal matters. No, it is not conflict of interest in most cases(although there are exceptions)... Unless I see some evidence that he was preaching specifically against these individuals or this specific usage, I don't see the argument for bias.

It has already been pointed out, but once more: this organisation did not merely "deal" with legal matters; instead of merely discussing jurisprudence and deciding what was the best interpretation of law, it lobbied for a specific interpretation of law. That is bias - the fact that he was on the board signified that he was not merely an observer, but an active participant.

quote:

I know little to nothing about Swedish law, but I do know that I'll take the judge's interpretation over random internet people, or even TPB(and the IFPI), which of course have their own agendas.

Most people know 'little to nothing' about even the laws of their own state; that does not preclude them from questioning the application of those laws if the results are questionable. And there is never anything wrong with questioning authority, as long as it's through the proper channels (first), ie. not riots/etc.

More on-topic however; if his membership was just to learn more about the law, as a judge he would obviously understand the benefits of seeing both sides of the argument and he would obviously also be a member of an organisation advocating for more liberal interpretations of copyright and IP laws.... right?

Originally posted by jbrown96:I really can't believe some of the people advocating for a retrial on these grounds.

I'm surprised anyone could think otherwise. The judge wasn't just a member of a pro-copyright organisation, he was a sitting board member of an organisation that receives money from the IFPI and lobbies for harsher copyright laws. This has conflict of interest written all over it, and for anybody to have faith in the legal system is needs to be retried.

quote:

I pirate a lot of stuff, and I'm willing to accept the consequences.

I'm not, because the consequences are unjust, the laws are wrong. That's why this needs to be retried with a judge that will impartially look at the situation without accepting money from the same organisation that's bringing the lawsuit.

quote:

Anyone who would claim that the Pirate Bay isn't meant to facilitate copyright infringement is disingenuous.

The disingenuous part comes in when people conflate commercial piracy with non-commercial copyright infringement. There's a big difference there and we don't need judges presiding over cases involving the same organisations he's accepting money from.

quote:

and there really isn't very much legal content on the site.

I've seen no illegal content on their site. I've never come across child porn or pro-nazi material while I was there. The content is legal, the distribution method is what the court case was over, however a judge with a vested interest presided over the case, hence the need for a new trial. Copyright infringement is a civil issue, and it doesn't help when you call legal content illegal for dramatic effect, or try to imply civil issues are criminal ones.

quote:

The law enforcers will always be better funded and staffed than the criminals.

No, the criminals are funded so well they can buy laws in their favour, negating their "criminal" status.

quote:

Originally posted by reflex-croft:At any rate, yes it is normal for judges to belong to various organizations that deal with legal matters. No, it is not conflict of interest in most cases(although there are exceptions). And being a board member does not imply anything sinister, unless of course you assume that all board members are in unison on thier opinion(in which case, why have a board at all?). Unless I see some evidence that he was preaching specifically against these individuals or this specific usage, I don't see the argument for bias.

He's on the board of an organisation that accepts money from the claimants!! He should have automatically disqualified himself to avoid any claim of conflict of interest. The fact that he didn't demonstrates he's either incompetent as a judge or has other agendas. The case needs to be retried.

quote:

As for apologizing, what do they have to apologize for? Using the legal system to enforce what they see as their rights, vs taking a vigilante approach and perhaps raiding TPB's hosting service and smashing the machines?

They should apologise for abusing the legal system, not using it. They've already raided the machines, and they weren't protecting their rights, they're protecting their business model.

EDIT: To rephrase and clarify the difference between "illegal content" and "civil distribution dispute".

Big Content to me resembles a child punching a wave that then crashes over them.

Except that the child probably realises that the wave itself can't be stopped.

It used to be random FTP sites you'd find in IRC. Then Napster. Then Limewire. Then torrents. Then rapidshare and megaupload. I've not seen a newsgroup in many a year but I gather they're hotbeds of piracy as well.

As best I can tell, rapidshare and megaupload are completely anonymous unless those companies are keeping logs of every IP that visits. Given the attitude of most companies in similar positions, they're probably not keeping logs.

Originally posted by www.eZee.se:"No your honor, he does not have anything against blacks... he is just a member of the KKK to understand them better, the fact that he is one of the leaders in the KKK - akin to being a board member in an organization just goes to show his understanding of black culture is better than most"

Originally posted by StuckInaCube:Way to go Big Content. Even those that agree with the reasoning behind your filings can recognize how badly your lawyers have botched this trial. Greed, bias, and relentless pressure have done well to....oh wait... TPB still isn't dead.

Hoist the colours

Well, Big Content's pressure did get the pirate party into office. Good going BC. Like may of us predicted, your tactics have done the polar opposite of your desires. But please, continue trudging onwards.

Originally posted by www.eZee.se:"No your honor, he does not have anything against blacks... he is just a member of the KKK to understand them better, the fact that he is one of the leaders in the KKK - akin to being a board member in an organization just goes to show his understanding of black culture is better than most"

Thanks, this thread was missing a bit of Godwin's Law. Nazi's to follow.

At any rate, yes it is normal for judges to belong to various organizations that deal with legal matters. No, it is not conflict of interest in most cases(although there are exceptions). And being a board member does not imply anything sinister, unless of course you assume that all board members are in unison on thier opinion(in which case, why have a board at all?). Unless I see some evidence that he was preaching specifically against these individuals or this specific usage, I don't see the argument for bias.

As for the conspiracy theorists, you people are no better than the moon landing hoaxers. Just because a decision does not go the way you wish it would, does that mean there must have been a bribe or payoff? How many of you people even know the first thing about Swedish law? Or do you just make random statements off the cuff about legal decisions without supporting evidence? I know little to nothing about Swedish law, but I do know that I'll take the judge's interpretation over random internet people, or even TPB(and the IFPI), which of course have their own agendas.

It must be nice to be a PAID member of the board that works for the claimants. No, no bias there at all. :|

Originally posted by www.eZee.se:"No your honor, he does not have anything against blacks... he is just a member of the KKK to understand them better, the fact that he is one of the leaders in the KKK - akin to being a board member in an organization just goes to show his understanding of black culture is better than most"

Thanks, this thread was missing a bit of Godwin's Law. Nazi's to follow.

At any rate, yes it is normal for judges to belong to various organizations that deal with legal matters. No, it is not conflict of interest in most cases(although there are exceptions). And being a board member does not imply anything sinister, unless of course you assume that all board members are in unison on thier opinion(in which case, why have a board at all?). Unless I see some evidence that he was preaching specifically against these individuals or this specific usage, I don't see the argument for bias.

As for the conspiracy theorists, you people are no better than the moon landing hoaxers. Just because a decision does not go the way you wish it would, does that mean there must have been a bribe or payoff? How many of you people even know the first thing about Swedish law? Or do you just make random statements off the cuff about legal decisions without supporting evidence? I know little to nothing about Swedish law, but I do know that I'll take the judge's interpretation over random internet people, or even TPB(and the IFPI), which of course have their own agendas.

Perhaps we need a second principle of gordmans law concerning the inappropriate use of the first principle the longer the thread......

Oh and you were the first to menton Nazis so you lost.

The one clear thing here is that even the appearence of impropriaty is in fact an act of impropriaty.

You must not even let the court have the appearacnce of bias if you wish to maintain a legal system that represents the people. Rightly or not if everyone beleves that it is corrupt or for sale it becomes something to fight not to work with.

Many of us have been running full throttle, encrypted P2P (point to point) for years now. Do not fear what an FAQ cannot deliver. You are not going to kill copyright. If you think it's even a possibility you are a child.

Wow, lots of Swedish lawyers in this thread, lecturing on what constitutes bias and conflict of interest. None are correct, however, although I admit I also am not a lawyer.

Once again, the panel would have had to find that bias affected the verdict, which they did not find. That is completely appropriate, whether you like the decision or not. The arguments about copywrite, civil vs. criminal(retarded argument, civil certainly can be criminal and vice versa) trials, and the larger culture and battle are philosophical debate, and irrelevant in the context of this specific issue.

My point in engaging the mob in this debate was simply to point out that the conspiracy theoriests are idiots as usual. Money did not change hands, the panel that reviewed this was not bribed, and a decision was rendered that simply was not to their liking(although likely in accordance with Swedish law, which is all that really matters here). If you disagree with the decision you, like the IFPI, have legal options. For TPB, there is the appeals process. For the average Swede wishing to see things work differently, since they live in a democracy they can work to get the laws changed. Just as anyone here can. "Big Content" is not nearly so big as a popular movement, and if everyone here really wants change, they will make it happen.

Of course they may want it, but few will actually work for it, because at the end of the day its a minor irritation to most, if they notice it at all.

Originally posted by reflex-croft:Wow, lots of Swedish lawyers in this thread, lecturing on what constitutes bias and conflict of interest. None are correct, however, although I admit I also am not a lawyer.

Once again, the panel would have had to find that bias affected the verdict, which they did not find.

I'm not a lawyer either but I've been following the Swedish media and blogs about this. The rules for judges/jurors here speak of the suspicion of bias. It has to do with the public's credibility in the legal system at large, and not about proving specifically that the verdict was affected. Many legal professionals here have stated that they think the judge's decision to stay on this case was remarkable and not following the guidelines.

No one here seriously believes money changed hands or something like that but rather that the judge has opinions in this matter that may have tainted the verdict. Like Catafriggm said above, the judge is a board member of an organization that has lobbied for stronger punishments and better legal means to nail mediators in infringement cases.

Originally posted by reflex-croft:Wow, lots of Swedish lawyers in this thread, lecturing on what constitutes bias and conflict of interest. None are correct, however, although I admit I also am not a lawyer.

Once again, the panel would have had to find that bias affected the verdict, which they did not find. That is completely appropriate, whether you like the decision or not. The arguments about copywrite, civil vs. criminal(retarded argument, civil certainly can be criminal and vice versa) trials, and the larger culture and battle are philosophical debate, and irrelevant in the context of this specific issue.

My point in engaging the mob in this debate was simply to point out that the conspiracy theoriests are idiots as usual. Money did not change hands, the panel that reviewed this was not bribed, and a decision was rendered that simply was not to their liking(although likely in accordance with Swedish law, which is all that really matters here). If you disagree with the decision you, like the IFPI, have legal options. For TPB, there is the appeals process. For the average Swede wishing to see things work differently, since they live in a democracy they can work to get the laws changed. Just as anyone here can. "Big Content" is not nearly so big as a popular movement, and if everyone here really wants change, they will make it happen.

Of course they may want it, but few will actually work for it, because at the end of the day its a minor irritation to most, if they notice it at all.

So you mean to tell me that you believe a judge who's paid in a one-step hop by the IFPI/RIAA is not biased in cases where the IFPI/RIAA is facing their mortal enemy? I mean, I appreciate the devil's advocacy, but you're not making a good advocate. You just look like a shill. They may not be directly paying him to take TPB down, but you have to purposely avoid facts to not believe that appears biased.

It would be like having pharmaceutical employees doing the drug screening for professional athletes. Or maybe if Consumer Reports (you're fairly obviously American) was owned by, say, Whirlpool. Just look at JD Powers awards for a textbook case of biased. How many non-domestic automobiles have won JD Powers awards? I've never seen it.

The conspiracy theorists aren't correct. He wasn't bought specifically, he signed with them long beforehand. My guess is TPB knew about this and kept it as their ace in the hole in the event they lost. No matter what actually goes down in the case, when you have a judge who might as well wear the t-shirt, you don't care about the case's result because it's going to be redone. I expect Sweden to force a retrial in the case.

People are a product of their environment to some extent. At least, as all of us have discovered or will discover, at some point we make decisions based upon what we have learned in the past.

How can a person expose their self to a one-sided opinion (in this case Big Contents opinions) as a means of keeping abreast and learning, with no other counter points included, and not be biased in some way in future decisions?

How can a persons whos only source of information has been the opposition make an unbiased decision when all they know is the oppositions opinion?

How can a person whos very frame of mind and associative references make an unbiased decision based on anything other then what he or she knows from those associative references?

You can't do it, I can't do it, no one can, and simply being a judge doesn't mean magically that you can not have any bias what so ever. Especially when your only past educational information has been the direct opposite of the very information upon which you are called to render an unbiased opinion or decision. Even as laymen, you or I have experienced this at some point when we thought back and said to ourself or someone else "I remember when my parents did that." or "I remember when." or similar. Our own very rememberances may influence our decisions and opinions in some way.

No one can do it, no matter how much we try or how hard we want to remain impartial or unbiased, there is always going to be a bit of bias based upon our experiences, environment, and educational information. Our environment, educational experiences, our informational references and associations, color our perception and intentionally or unintentionally cause us to view or interpet and even read things certain ways for even the most simple things. It can't be helped, its the way the human condition is, the way we are 'wired', the way we experience, the way we are as humans. If it wasn't that way, then there would be no arguments over science, religion, law, right or wrong, life in general, no disagreements of any kind, but we all know thats not the case.

Regardless if its spoken or unspoken, demonstrated or not, thought or not, that little bit of bias is always going to be there if even at an underlying unaware level. Then when we immerse ourselfs in associations with groups or people whos views are so opposed to something else, there has to be a conflict of some sort in viewpoint.

I've no doubt the judge ruled according to law, but even a ruling according to law is only as good as the integrity of the court/judge making that ruling. There are any number of ways to "work the system", judges are no different and their own perception and reading of the law can be influenced just the same as anyone elses. Other then someones opinion, what is the test to prove there was no bias, how can we prove no conflict of interest especially when the very things which are generally used to show a conflict of interest or bias are so obviously present?

In the U.S. (I don't know about Sweden exactly) it is a violation of ethics, and law in some cases, for a judge persiding over a case to not recuse him/her self if he/she has known associations with groups who present an opposing viewpoint interest, or represent financial interest, for the judge for the case thats being adjudicated. Most democratic forms of goverment have very similar if not the same rules of ethics and law in this particular aspect.

No matter what country its in, no matter the form of government, no matter the form of the legal system, no matter what language, at the human experience level, the human condition level, we are all, even judges, a product of our environment and the things we have learned along the way in life. If our only source of learning is a single point source opinion then we adopt what that opinion is to some extent and it forms part or all of the bias for or against anything else we do or think.

This judge was/is biased, there is an obvious conflict of interest, there can not be anything but a conflict of interest and bias here.